4 ms·

Sure, back in the day. And they don't go out of their way to support it in the modern era. ...but this goes back to the US interpretation of "monopoly practice

Sure, back in the day. And they don't go out of their way to support it in the modern era. ...but this goes back to the US interpretation of "monopoly practice" vs. the European interpretation. Where was the consumer harm? How does MS "stifle" an OS that you can just pick up from a CD, floppy disk, or the Internet and drop on a machine you own? History seems to have shown "You can't." In general, the biggest hindrance to Linux desktop adoption is the Linux UX (and for games, the experience of building one with the libraries available on Linux [https://utopixel.games/en/blog/building-outer-wonders-for-linux/ https://utopixel.games/en/blog/building-outer-wonders-for-li...]), not anything Microsoft (or Apple, for that matter) have done to it.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago
"Back in the day" is stretching it since MS did this 2 months ago. With the same strategy they used to kill Be decades ago, which obviously works. It's irrelevant what you think about Linux UX. It is just fact that MS is worried enough that _to this day_ they are using their monopoly position to stifle non-Windows OSes ( desktop AND server) every frigging time they can. Same way they have doing continuously for decades. And also despite the fact their marketing dept says that "MS loves Linux" and the armchair analysts say that MS makes money from Linux servers.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Are you talking about Be as in Be Incorporated? With the BeBox and BeOS? They settled a lawsuit with Microsoft, but Be didn't fail because of anything Microsoft did any more than it failed because of anything Apple did. Nobody wanted yet another operating system to write code against. Be failed for the same reason that Plan 9 hasn't caught fire and served as a meaningful alternative to the Linux ecosystem; when your architecture is too far divorced from the existing ecosystems after the ecosystems grow sufficiently large, it doesn't matter if your solution is slightly better... Developers don't want to invest the time starting over. Monopoly protection is a lot of things, but it isn't a mechanism for somebody to try and compete with DC power for long distance transmission when the world has already wired up AC.
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    Again, it's irrelevant what your opinion of the competition is. I'm just pointing that _they are_ abusing their dominant position to stiffle the competition, as recently as 2 months ago, and using the same tactiques they have been using since forever. "The competition sucks" has never been an argument _at all_ in any antitrust case and never will, by definition.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      "Competition is a ruthless process. A firm that reduces cost and expands sales injures rivals--sometimes fatally." ~ Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1338 (7th Cir. 1986) (Easterbrook, J.)., sourced from the DOJ website. (https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol...). Also worth noting on that page: "At its core, section 2 makes it illegal to acquire or maintain monopoly power through improper means." Monopoly itself is not illegal in the US system; consumer harm is. This differs from the European interpretation. ... but yes, "Your honor, the competition is just too bad at this to compete" is an antitrust defense as a result. At least in the US system.
      - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
        Your conclusion does not really follow from what you are quoting. Can you quote a case where "the competition sucks" was actually and succesfully used as a defense in the US? I don't disagree with anything you quoted -- it is abuse of a dominant position that is illegal (even in my country at the very least, which last time I checked was in the EU). Just note that it doesn't really matter if you got your monopoly because "the competition sucked" or not, just the fact that you have a dominant position, and you abused it. So I disagree with the conclusion. And let it be clear that all of this is an off-topic, since again the point was that MS is still using the same anti-competitive strategies they were using decades ago, to this day.
        3y ago

AshamedCaptain 3y ago

"Back in the day" is stretching it since MS did this 2 months ago. With the same strategy they used to kill Be decades ago, which obviously works. It's irrelevant what you think about Linux UX. It is just fact that MS is worried enough that _to this day_ they are using their monopoly position to stifle non-Windows OSes ( desktop AND server) every frigging time they can. Same way they have doing continuously for decades. And also despite the fact their marketing dept says that "MS loves Linux" and the armchair analysts say that MS makes money from Linux servers.

shadowgovt 3y ago
Are you talking about Be as in Be Incorporated? With the BeBox and BeOS? They settled a lawsuit with Microsoft, but Be didn't fail because of anything Microsoft did any more than it failed because of anything Apple did. Nobody wanted yet another operating system to write code against. Be failed for the same reason that Plan 9 hasn't caught fire and served as a meaningful alternative to the Linux ecosystem; when your architecture is too far divorced from the existing ecosystems after the ecosystems grow sufficiently large, it doesn't matter if your solution is slightly better... Developers don't want to invest the time starting over. Monopoly protection is a lot of things, but it isn't a mechanism for somebody to try and compete with DC power for long distance transmission when the world has already wired up AC.
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  Again, it's irrelevant what your opinion of the competition is. I'm just pointing that _they are_ abusing their dominant position to stiffle the competition, as recently as 2 months ago, and using the same tactiques they have been using since forever. "The competition sucks" has never been an argument _at all_ in any antitrust case and never will, by definition.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    "Competition is a ruthless process. A firm that reduces cost and expands sales injures rivals--sometimes fatally." ~ Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1338 (7th Cir. 1986) (Easterbrook, J.)., sourced from the DOJ website. (https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol...). Also worth noting on that page: "At its core, section 2 makes it illegal to acquire or maintain monopoly power through improper means." Monopoly itself is not illegal in the US system; consumer harm is. This differs from the European interpretation. ... but yes, "Your honor, the competition is just too bad at this to compete" is an antitrust defense as a result. At least in the US system.
    - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
      Your conclusion does not really follow from what you are quoting. Can you quote a case where "the competition sucks" was actually and succesfully used as a defense in the US? I don't disagree with anything you quoted -- it is abuse of a dominant position that is illegal (even in my country at the very least, which last time I checked was in the EU). Just note that it doesn't really matter if you got your monopoly because "the competition sucked" or not, just the fact that you have a dominant position, and you abused it. So I disagree with the conclusion. And let it be clear that all of this is an off-topic, since again the point was that MS is still using the same anti-competitive strategies they were using decades ago, to this day.
      - 3y ago